Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Anwar al-Alaki, while I don't mourn his death, I see his killing as a slippery slope. Same goes for this memo and what it is proposing. I think a better alternative is for an American citizen that is being targeted overseas that has a nexus to terrorism and is an imminent threat, is to be tried in absentia. That way there is some sort of due process, review, and evidence can be weighed. It could even be a closed court or classified hearing (like they are doing for Pfc Bradely Manning in regards to Wikileaks), but at least there is some kind of judicial process. Additionally, perhaps the sentencing can range from imposing sanctions on the individual, such as not permitting return to the US, freezing financial assets, or depending on the severity of his/her actions, maybe even the death penalty (for a capital crime - treason?).

I assume this would have no jury correct? If that's the case, it seems moot, as federal agents will basically always get what they want behind closed doors.

I understand if we have a beef with the government to the extent that we're ready to go to war over it. At that point, sovereignty is a moot point. But what criteria to we have to meet to violate another country's sovereignty to get one person?

Flip it around. How would it come out if we had Chinese hellfire rockets coming out of the skies towards Chinese political dissidents living in the U.S.?

I understand if we have a beef with the government to the extent that we're ready to go to war over it. At that point, sovereignty is a moot point. But what criteria to we have to meet to violate another country's sovereignty to get one person?

Flip it around. How would it come out if we had Chinese hellfire rockets coming out of the skies towards Chinese political dissidents living in the U.S.?

If they ask, and we say no, and they do it anyway, what then?

There was a mosque in Hamburg, Germany that was connected to 9/11 and many terrorists were connected to this mosque. Chasing AQ anywhere would have suggested that we send a drone over and bomb this mosque in Germany, violating German sovereignty. However, we did not. But we have no problems sending drones into Pakistan, Yemen, etc. The differences between the countries are considerable, but the right to sovereignty is universal. Each situation has to be weighed individually. Germany is not Pakistan. Germany is not Yemen.

There was a mosque in Hamburg, Germany that was connected to 9/11 and many terrorists were connected to this mosque. Chasing AQ anywhere would have suggested that we send a drone over and bomb this mosque in Germany, violating German sovereignty. However, we did not. But we have no problems sending drones into Pakistan, Yemen, etc. The differences between the countries are considerable, but the right to sovereignty is universal. Each situation has to be weighed individually. Germany is not Pakistan. Germany is not Yemen.

The one with the biggest "d!ck" dictates sovereignty. Thats the way the world works. If the US decides they need to do something somewhere, they are going to do it. Comes with the territory of being a superpower. The only other countries that can claim a "big d!ck" are Russia and China.

What makes Pakistan's sovereignty ok to violate but not Germany's? Pakistan's relative friendliness is directly critical to the war effort right now. Germany's is not.

inconvenient realities

Pakistan is a weak state amongst other reasons.

There has been discussion about sending forces in to Pakistan and Syria in the event the state collapses to secure their weapon caches. Pakistan is a nuclear state and Syria does have biological/chemical weapons. Are you against securing these weapons based on their universal right to sovereignty? Israel wasn't a week ago. Sometimes national interests and sovereignty cross paths.

Syria is collapsing quickly. "Securing chemical weapons" is a U.N. job. The U.S. invading another middle eastern country on the premise of weapons of mass destruction would be terrible, terrible juju.

And besides, I'd rather not go to Syria. You're more than welcome to, though.

Syria is collapsing quickly and what to do is a matter of debate. While you are fine pushing the responsibility to the UN, there are many others that are not. I am not advocating either. But just bringing up another issue where sovereignty violations would possibly be considered and accepted.

Honestly, I don't know. On paper it was a wrong thing to do. Rounding up a race and placing them into holding camps isn't right anyway you slice it. However, war is war. A lot of rules go out the window when it comes to war. Was it the proper strategy to ensure security at the time? Was there a credible threat from the Japanese inside our borders? Remember, there are a lot of things the public doesn't know, in fact, often times I think the public knows too much. So, on the surface, I don't agree with 9066. It doesn't SEEM to be a rational solution. My opinion is solely based on the information available historically, not from a government perspective at the time.

Funny coming from a guy who is the male equivalent of Monica Lewinsky... All up on Clintons jock, when he in fact let OBL walk numerous times, while he was on the most wanted list.

OBL was never officially charged with 9/11, and just because you were duped into thinking Iraq was about the War On Terror, doesn't mean we all were.

What?

OBL didn't fly two planes into the WTC when Clinton was in office. Dubya invaded Iraq on the pretense that they had nukes, not because of 9/11. Just because you and the other Foxtards thought Iraq was behind 9/11 doesn't mean the rest of us did.

75% of republicans STILL think Iraq was behind 9/11.

Morons.

And please - stop the mansex fantasies. I'm not gay, not matter how much you want me to be.

Honestly, I don't know. On paper it was a wrong thing to do. Rounding up a race and placing them into holding camps isn't right anyway you slice it. However, war is war. A lot of rules go out the window when it comes to war. Was it the proper strategy to ensure security at the time? Was there a credible threat from the Japanese inside our borders? Remember, there are a lot of things the public doesn't know, in fact, often times I think the public knows too much. So, on the surface, I don't agree with 9066. It doesn't SEEM to be a rational solution. My opinion is solely based on the information available historically, not from a government perspective at the time.